again, there is no amount oweed. the business would verify then. there is a section in proposition j that talks about legal relationships, so it says landlords must not be related byopeership directly or indirectly to the legacy business. if there are relationships under the broad definition the landlord isn't eligible to apply. but, not having expertise in this area, i think manu suggested that we dpet a little more clarity around what does related by ownership mean directly and indirectly and so i think we'll continue to work on that, but i thought it plight be good to get direction and expertise from you commissioner tour-sarkissian in terms what to look and how to define this when the grant applications come in we can look at that and assess whether there is a legal relationship or not. >> we should look at other laws in the city and see how that is interpreted. but in my opinion is that any ownership interest in a property should be grant for disqualification. that is, if a you are a tenant and have 10 percent, 5 percent-any interest other tha

again, there is no amount oweed. the business would verify then. there is a section in proposition j that talks about legal relationships, so it says landlords must not be related byopeership directly or indirectly to the legacy business. if there are relationships under the broad definition the landlord isn't eligible to apply. but, not having expertise in this area, i think manu suggested that we dpet a little more clarity around what does related by ownership mean directly and indirectly and so i think we'll continue to work on that, but i thought it plight be good to get direction and expertise from you commissioner tour-sarkissian in terms what to look and how to define this when the grant applications come in we can look at that and assess whether there is a legal relationship or not. >> we should look at other laws in the city and see how that is interpreted. but in my opinion is that any ownership interest in a property should be grant for disqualification. that is, if a you are a tenant and have 10 percent, 5 percent-any interest other tha

if we should state that the property owner is required to then refund the amount of grant they were oweed. ? you should change the word ask to required which is may be required to return the grant funds. if this is done fraujiantly then yes, of coursefelt if they dopet they will get sued by the city. >> the question i believe is, ret row active from day one. the first date of misrepresentation and fraud the city can require reimbursement of the grant. >> i think existing law allows for that. that is going after people guilty of prod. >> from day one, correct? >> that is the question. you can pro pouse from day one. >> fwraum the time you break the law you are libel to reemburse the city for fund they gave under false pretense. i don't think it should be asked. i think may be require today return the grant fund. >> maybe be. may be meaning only if the city attorney is successful prosecuting. you will be required to the extent-required is may be required if you are bank rupt we may choose not to prosecute. will be required. they still may not- >> we'll get our city attorney-- >> i think abs

again, there is no amount oweed. the business would verify then. there is a section in proposition j that talks about legal relationships, so it says landlords must not be related byopeership directly or indirectly to the legacy business. if there are relationships under the broad definition the landlord isn't eligible to apply. but, not having expertise in this area, i think manu suggested that we dpet a little more clarity around what does related by ownership mean directly

there's a monument in owee go, new york, that memorializes all the victims that were lost and it readsrorists. you have the islamic organization of the southern tier they're encouraging that word islamic be scrubbed from the monument because they say it encourages hatred towards muslims. what are your thoughts? >> that would be like my saying i want the word mafia taken out of the history books because it defames all italian americans. that would be sick. >> italian mafia, that would bother you? >> no, i put them all in jail. my reaction to the italian mafia was real simple. i'm italian american, i don't belong to them. i want nothing to do with them and they represent the bad part of my ethnic background. every ethnic background has a bad part. that's a bad part to the islamic religion and the good part of the islamic religion shouldn't feel at all hurt by islamic terrorism. they should feel angry about it. they should feel like maybe even stronger than i do. they should be wiped out because i felt strongly that people who weren't italian americans and mafia should be wiped out. you s